It’s missing key information, and without that information the title doesn’t make sense, and kind of isn’t as interesting. Now read your comment as if I wrote it back to you.
without that information the title doesn’t make sense
you could have just said “i don’t understand”. here, let me help you: a ship has set a record under certain condition.
if you have a specific information to add, like that it applies to electric ship, adding it is much more useful than asking cryptical questions that does not help anyone, and baselessly accusing the poster of changing the headline.
you are aware that any online server can update their texts, including headlines, and this headline may very well represent the state of the article at the moment it was captured, right? RIGHT?
Now read your comment as if I wrote it back to you.
I clicked on the post as I thought it’s bullshit as I, who served in the navy for 15 years, did much more than 160Nmi without refueling many times. But apparently it’s about a record for an electric boat, as clearly states in the original article’s title. So the post’s title changed the original title to clickbait.
But why is it triggering you so much that someone points that out? So much so you have to insult them as being childish? While at the same time behaving childish yourself. Are you just trolling for attention?
Ok, let me explain what the evidence is:
The title of the post
The title of the original article
that is not how evidence works. articles on the web and their content are routinely updated after publication. it is far more logical than that someone took the headline and intentionally changed one word to piss you off, because… why tf would someone do that?
But why is it triggering you so much that someone points that out?
why is it triggering you so much when someone say “don’t make stupid accusations without proof”?
Yet based on an assumption made by you. So your logic is flawed.
intentionally changed one word to piss you of
Who said it went like that? Someone just didn’t copy-paste the title correctly, changing the essence of the message. Again you make poor assumptions, to prove your idea to be less idiotic. So to prove your poor assumption, you make the other option an even worse assumption. While failing to see something very simple: the fact the title is wrong.
why is it triggering you so much when someone say “don’t make stupid accusations without proof”?
It’s triggering me someone is behaving like you did. Do you talk like that to people irl too? If so, it must suck getting punched in the face all the time, doesn’t it?
The proof is right there but you fail to acknowledge it, as you find your own assumptions more likely. So you behave poorly and your logic is flawed. If you don’t know what ‘proof’ and ‘facts’ are, you should open a thesaurus, work your way through it. So far you have shown the exactly same flawed reasoning of pseudoscientists and the attitude of a teenager on 4chan. I feel sorry for you.
I’m not going to continue a discussion with you. I just hope you will be able to treat others with a bit more respect in the future.
Also, the original article had a perfectly fine title. It’s pretty standard when posting to keep the title of the original article you’re linking to instead of editorializing it, unless you’re specifically going to fix something and note that.
Why did you change the title?
Article title is: Electric hydrofoil ferry completes record 160-mile voyage using standard fast chargers
that’s your problem? why is that your problem? is that really a problem? is anyone hurt? does the change misinterpret something?
Ok, now take what you said and ask yourself those questions before deciding to reply to comments.
It’s missing key information, and without that information the title doesn’t make sense, and kind of isn’t as interesting. Now read your comment as if I wrote it back to you.
you could have just said “i don’t understand”. here, let me help you: a ship has set a record under certain condition.
if you have a specific information to add, like that it applies to electric ship, adding it is much more useful than asking cryptical questions that does not help anyone, and baselessly accusing the poster of changing the headline.
you are aware that any online server can update their texts, including headlines, and this headline may very well represent the state of the article at the moment it was captured, right? RIGHT?
“no, you!”. how was kindergarten today? 😂
If this was a childish behavior contest, you would be winning by a landslide.
Why even attack someone pointing out the title is misleading and wrong? What’s wrong with you.
it is the person i am reacting to, who attacked the original poster, in the first sentence that came out of their mouth, without a grain of evidence.
Ok, let me explain what the evidence is:
Is it really that hard to get that?
I clicked on the post as I thought it’s bullshit as I, who served in the navy for 15 years, did much more than 160Nmi without refueling many times. But apparently it’s about a record for an electric boat, as clearly states in the original article’s title. So the post’s title changed the original title to clickbait.
But why is it triggering you so much that someone points that out? So much so you have to insult them as being childish? While at the same time behaving childish yourself. Are you just trolling for attention?
that is not how evidence works. articles on the web and their content are routinely updated after publication. it is far more logical than that someone took the headline and intentionally changed one word to piss you off, because… why tf would someone do that?
why is it triggering you so much when someone say “don’t make stupid accusations without proof”?
Yet based on an assumption made by you. So your logic is flawed.
Who said it went like that? Someone just didn’t copy-paste the title correctly, changing the essence of the message. Again you make poor assumptions, to prove your idea to be less idiotic. So to prove your poor assumption, you make the other option an even worse assumption. While failing to see something very simple: the fact the title is wrong.
It’s triggering me someone is behaving like you did. Do you talk like that to people irl too? If so, it must suck getting punched in the face all the time, doesn’t it?
The proof is right there but you fail to acknowledge it, as you find your own assumptions more likely. So you behave poorly and your logic is flawed. If you don’t know what ‘proof’ and ‘facts’ are, you should open a thesaurus, work your way through it. So far you have shown the exactly same flawed reasoning of pseudoscientists and the attitude of a teenager on 4chan. I feel sorry for you.
I’m not going to continue a discussion with you. I just hope you will be able to treat others with a bit more respect in the future.
Have a nice fay
Also, the original article had a perfectly fine title. It’s pretty standard when posting to keep the title of the original article you’re linking to instead of editorializing it, unless you’re specifically going to fix something and note that.
Here, let me help you: copy, paste.
and that is based on… ?
your unfounded accusations again.
Your comment was inane, which is why I gave the “no, you”.
oh jeez. i got whole two replies from you, you must be going ad.
inane [ɪˈneɪn]
adjective
lacking sense or meaning; silly:
“don’t badger people with inane questions”
ok, cool, i honestly thought it was a typo, but that doesn’t change my answer. just because my answer breaks your narrative doesn’t make it senseless.